QA Working Group Teleconference Minutes [DRAFT]
Wednesday, May 16,2003
--
Scribe: Sandra I. Martinez
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0057.html
Previous Telcon Minutes :
Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KG) Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
Regrets: [...tbd at roll-call -- transfer names from master list above...]
(DH) Dominique HazaÅ½l-Massieux (W3C)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
Absent: [...tbd at roll-call -- transfer names from master list above...]
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(PF) Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20030516-1 Lofton Henderson Provide rewording of Cp3.2 to add the
need for an
Unambiguous association with errata versions.
AI-20030516-2 Lofton Henderson Send out a new proposal for LC-60.10.
Minutes:
(LH) A new telecon schedule was sent out today. Monday 5/19 and Monday
5/26 telecons are cancelled. The Monday 5/26 telecon is rescheduled to
Wednesday, 5/28. Same time (11am EDT), same place. I also send the
announcement that the TestGl has been published.
Priority-change loose ends [6]
CP 2.3
(LH) We need to make decision on this one. Kirill is in support of
changing to P2.
(KG) This is not a W3C process requirement it is up to the WG to make
the restriction. I have never seen a condition on participation in W3C.
This CP needs a clarification.
(LH) Agree. We can clarify things a little bit so is not misread. I
propose to continue forward with the proposal and wait for a W3C person to
correct us if this is not the right approach. I will add a clarifying note
like; W3C allows a WG to have several participants per Member, and it is up
to the WG to determine any further restrictions, composition by specialty,
etc." We are asking that the WG explicitly indicate if they are willing to
supply resources dedicated to QA.
(KG) To indicate sounds better than to request.
(LH) Request is for Call for Participation. Your concern will go away
with the clarification.
CP3.2
(LH) I understand the arguments presented by Schema, but the overall
plan to accommodate errata support is handled in CP 8.2. This should
basically answer Schema arguments
(PC) Not sure I agree. We had struggled with this problem before. A test
suite that does not handle versions and errata is not worth it. This should
be a priority; we need to add something to emphasize this.
(LH) What about using the CVS to accomplish this? , It does not require
infrastructure support.
(PC) We should not be mandating. The TS must have a way to tie a
particular test to its related version of the specification and errata.
(LH) In SVG we have a way to do that.
(KG) The checkpoint should be reworded to add the need for an
unambiguous association with errata versions.
(LH) I will come up the rewording and the priority will be P1 as
requested by Schema. Action
LC-60.3 thru LC-60.15 closures: [3], [4], [5]
(LH) There is no change on LC-60.4, 7,11 and 12, nine of them led to
proposal of clarification to the language, some to add a sentence here and
there and others required more substantial clarification such as QA process
document. There is one exception about the wording of Gl2, there where two
comments one from Patrick one from Schema. Emphasizing early commitment was
not raised as a comment; I just want to point this out to avoid any surprises.
(KG) Left the meeting. The meeting is now under quorum.
(LH) Does anyone have a concern or comment about the proposals?
(SM) The rational proposed for LC-60.10 does not match the CP. This type
of CP belongs in TestGL.
(LH) Some other people say that this should not be in TestGl, but what
you point out is right.
(PC) I am not convinced. Why is this here?
(LH) This has resource impact it is important to consider the framework
at this point. Maybe I missed the boat in the rationale.
(PC) CP 4.2 is addressing resources. It is already there.
(SM) I recommend deleting CP 4.5.
(LH) I can consider folding in 4.2 not deleting it.
(PC) Expand in the rationale do not use the word framework.
(LH) Schema made a comment suggesting not getting rid off the framework
but generalize it in the test materials. This is in line with the suggestion.
(LH) We can put a line in 4.2 to address 4.5.
(PC) I prefer the fold down.
(LH) Down to priority 2, 4.2 is priority 2.
(PC) That seems appropriate to me.
(LH) Ok, sound like the solution is to delete 4.5 and fold it into 4.2
including implementation details. I will send Kirill this new proposal,
since he was part of us, and ask if he has any objection. Your solution
does repackage the concept in an appropriate way. I will take the action to
write a revise proposal for 4.5. Thank you Sandra for bringing this one up
this is a good improvement.
(PC) I could send more input via e-mail in relation to the other proposals.
(LH) I will be out for a while. Any thing in the nature of fine-tuning
is fine. If you have something critical bring it up in the IG list and we
deal with it later. Otherwise we have pretty much close all of the issues
submitted as part of the last call process.
I try to complete action items, put new issue list and discussion list out.
We now ready to move to TestGL.
Sandra I. Martinez
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899
(301) 975-3579
sandra.martinez@nist.gov